coolamber

Unfortunately it is not, he "tried" to quit a few years ago but was given a large raise to stay. Clark County is run by 7 elected individuals, they have no mayor. The individual cities have mayors but their power pales in comparison to the county's, the county is in charge of all of the airports with the exception of Boulder City, 61B. Its also really irritating in that the news is already reporting that the two aircraft that went down within a week of one another were both experimental, when the second was a Twin Piper.

Looks like Mr Randy Walker, director of the Clark County Dept of Aviation, has convinced the County to let him pursue his political agenda of controlling what aircraft are allowed to land at certain airports. http://www.lvrj.com/news/35459794.html also http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/1267-full.html#199330 This guy is not a friend to aviation, the owner of the FBO that I am training out of has nothing good to day about the guy. <rant> Personally I am pissed that my tax dollars go to pay for a tool like this guy. Take some responsibility for zoning housing off the departure ends of the runway instead of trying to ban a particular type of airplane, especially since 1 week later a certified twin crashed into a house near that same airport. </rant>

Wow did you know that for only $20K you can get a GPS that works in an airplane that will tell you where you are at an airport? This is a really bad blog post at wired.com and I had to share it with the community. http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/09/im-horrible-whe.html My favorite quote 'Pilots hear audible alerts when they approach and enter taxiways and runways, maybe something like "hey handsome, you've arrived at taxiway 31L' WHOA: If you are using a taxiway with numbers 31L on it, you are in big trouble.

I am questioning whether it truly had 5 hours of logged time. It was certified back in 2002 according to the FAA. I suppose it is possible but it seems more likely that Mr Walker might have been working with bad information when he said it had only 5 hours. If it did have many more than 5 by the time it is revealed it will be old news.

Quoting from the video, makes me sad to live here. "The scrutiny is high when you can order the aircraft on the Internet and cobble the parts together yourself" Anything to sell a story Also: This guy is not your friend: http://www.lasvegasnow.com/Global/story.asp?S=8887402

Communications engineer, Satellite and Networking mostly. Got stuck doing computer security because we had no one else to do it, but still have fun with it.

Ok now I understand. Instead of apply the fastener through the firewall I bond it to the outside using the permanent bracket as a jig and then cover it with bid. Will this work for the engine mounts too? Just kidding

Hehe I was glancing through chapters and I think I quit I page from the section. Any suggestions on the click bonds? The CB4000 seems to be the correct part number but I cannot seem to decipher the material or thread specs from the spec sheet to match the MS24694-S54 25/32" 10-32 thread screws.

Even though I am currently working on chapter 6, I held off on building my permanent firewall until after I had a good template from the temporary firewall. I just got done bonding the fuselage into a 3D structure last night. (yea!) Anyway, soon it will be time to make the lower permanent firewall, and I was wondering if anyone has used click bonds here instead of using the welded wire method. When I looked at infinity's site the click bonds there seem to be directed toward the aileron attachment. Does anyone know what click bonds I should be looking at for the firewall? Am I stupid to consider click bonds here? Also on a secondary note, where is the section in the plans where I attach the upper firewall to the fuselage? I wanted to read ahead and could not find it on first glance. Thanks! Coolamber

It's not the size of the stick that matters...

Put your mind in the gutter a bit and you will understand.

Do that with some mosquitoes and someday they will extract the DNA from this insect encased in this odd blue rock. Then they will make a park on an island and fill it with long extinct humans.

Its not really a fly in, but it is a pretty cool airshow nonetheless. Since I work on Nellis AFB I will definitely be there. In case there are other canardians who are going I thought this would be a good thread to start. http://aviationnation.org/an2007.html November 10 and 11, Neliis AFB Las Vegas Nevada.

Thankfully all of the bubbles are under 1/4"

Edit please ignore double post from accidental reload (sorry)

Well I am below that 10%, I will be well below that after the repairs, so I would "think" that any repair would be more structurally sound than a patch. Thanks!

I need some advice on how to repair some layup issues. I did the big layup on the fuselage sides and when I was done stippling out all the bubbles I layed on my layer of peel ply. Once the peel ply was down I was pretty much unable to do any further inspection. Well during cure a few areas developed bubbles between the foam and fiberglass. Maybe I missed them during the layup. MGS and blue foam seems to make them more difficult to notice. Anyway some are just the small 1mm or less bubbles that I cannot really worry about.For the larger ones, I was considering using a 18 gauge hypodermic and syringe from the unglassed side to back fill the spaces with epoxy. I will do this when I pop the sides from the jigs. Is this a valid repair technique? One of the areas that has bubbles is within the 10" radius of the canard attachment point, so the plans seem to indicate this is a critical area. For the inspection 10% rule, does the rejection mean that 10% of a 6"x6" square area is air, or 10% of the area has portions with air? Thanks much! Coolamber

I bought about 20 cans of the old stuff when I heard they were changing it. I was into rc at the time and 77 was the stuff to use when making skins adhere to foam. I still have 19 cans left.

Can someone else with Aerocanard plans check their chapter 5 page 4. Mine seems to be missing figures 12 and 13, where the stringers LWX and LWY are described. Much obliged Coolamber

Completely unrelated to canards, but still very much worth mentioning. http://earth.google.com/sky/skyedu.html Google released a new version of google earth, it has a tool called google sky. It’s just like earth in how you can pan and zoom waaaay in. Except its of the sky, constellations, nebula, galaxies, etc. There are a lot of hubble images that you can click on and get pictures that hubble has taken as well. There is also a lot of educational content. Very cool, one of the best things I have ever seen, period.

I have the files. You can get them at the links below. The free version of 3dstudio can be used to convert them. http://members.cox.net/coolamber/cozy%20drawing.zip http://members.cox.net/coolamber/cozy%20components.zip

Yes I was going to rearrange them once I got the dimensions correct. When I ran them into my 36" plotter I would just make sure I was printing 1:1 and then zoom over the correct area. It’s a hack but it was effective for me. Heres an updated drawing. Still need to do the firewall. I did the 1/4 inch inserts with the fg dimensions. The dimensions seem to match the plans so far.

Yeah I knew I needed to change the units accuracy. I was mainly concerned about my interpretation of the drawings. The bulkhead reinforcements I was unsure of as well as the positioning of those reinforcements.

I modified the cozy bulkhead cad drawings to add in the dimensions for the aerocanard FG. If someone could take a look at them and verify my interpretation of the drawings the feedback would be much appreciated. I am including both autocad 2008 and dxf formats. I have not done the firewall yet but thats next. aerocad landing gear bulkheads.zip